Iran University of Art Journal of Architecture and Urban Planning 2717-1299 18 49 2025 12 22 Analysis of scholarly documentation on pedagogy of criticism in architecture: A scoping review Analysis of scholarly documentation on pedagogy of criticism in architecture: A scoping review 31 56 1467 10.30480/aup.2025.5688.2219 FA Akbar ِDabestani Rafsanjani PhD Candidate in Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Saeed Haghir Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Saeid Khaghani Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 01 22 Architectural education continues to organize its studio culture around criticism, yet the field still lacks a shared narrative of what architectural criticism is supposed to accomplish, how it is taught, and how its outcomes are assessed in coherent and transparent ways. In both scholarship and curricula, critique is typically seen as a teaching mechanism for improving work in progress—pinups, roundtables, and juries as moments to guide decisions and refine proposals—rather than as a distinct academic competency that can be named, taught, and assessed. This orientation has reinforced a reliance on inherited traditions and individual teaching styles rather than on research-based models that specify learning outcomes, criteria, and methods. The result is a fragmented pedagogy that obscures the multiple functions of critique in higher education and limits the development of structured, cumulative approaches to teaching it. This study undertakes a scoping review of research conducted in the field of architectural criticism pedagogy to map the field, identify recurring gaps, and develop conceptual and pedagogical frameworks that now guide practice. This review does more than simply cataloguing sources. It reads the literature as evidence for the epistemological place of critique in academia: how the discourse of evaluation produces knowledge, structures participation, and is disseminated as a teachable practice in formal programs. In this sense, the project seeks to contribute to theoretical clarification and practical improvement of teaching strategies. Following the five-step framework of Arce and O’Malley, this review adopts an applied orientation. Targeted searches in Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect using defined keyword strings yielded 494 records. After removing duplicates and two-level screening against the previous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 peer-reviewed studies that directly addressed criticism training were retained for analysis. Data were graphed in Excel and examined through descriptive keyword analysis, primary and secondary theme extraction, conceptual content analysis and thesaurus mapping with VOSviewer to visualize the relationships between terms and themes in the dataset. The findings are remarkably consistent. In most sources, critique is framed as a tool: as a means to improve the quality of design proposals, foster critical thinking, and support decision-making in studio courses. The emphasis is short-term and artifact-focused—what kinds of comments open up better alternatives, how to justify revisions, and where to place judgment in iterative design. In contrast, relatively few studies address critique as an independent, structured, and transferable capability. In those less common narratives, critique involves developing criteria, gathering and weighing evidence, articulating reasoned arguments, managing disagreement, and communicating clear judgments—skills that can be learned, practiced, and evaluated across contexts. This emphasis on critique for design has two predictable consequences. First, without an explicit narrative of criticism as systematic inquiry, students are rarely taught how intuition and taste translate into reasoned judgment. Education often prioritizes providing feedback over cultivating evaluative reasoning and ethical awareness. Second, the lack of stated outcomes and benchmarking guidelines undermines curriculum coherence and hinders comparisons across courses and institutions. Practices remain subject to local custom and individual preferences, limiting transferability and slowing cumulative improvement. This synthesis suggests several paths for recalibration. Conceptually, theoretical-practical frameworks should present critique as an inquiry based on criteria, evidence, and argument, not as ad hoc interpretation. Pedagogically, programs can stage a clear learning progression—moving from description to analysis, evaluation, and, ultimately, to metacriticism. Early activities can foster careful observation and impartial description of design movements. Intermediate tasks can require analytical comparisons between precedents, alternatives, and constraints. Advanced tasks can require students to make and defend evaluative judgments, accept opposing arguments, and reflect on the norms and values that guide their reasoning. Assessment should align with this path. Rubrics can make criteria visible, separate the quality of reasons from the tone of the presentation, and differentiate design assessment from critical assessment. Short written “critic notes,” annotated design briefs, and short oral defenses can require students to frame claims, present evidence, and clarify reasons. Careful, measured peer review can amplify voices and foster accountability, while instructor feedback can model clear reasoning, responsible dissent, and humane behavior in the studio. Technology in the reviewed literature appears promising but underdeveloped. Digital platforms can frame asynchronous critique, expand participation, and document how projects and arguments evolve over time; version histories make lines of argument traceable. Learning analytics can help educators regulate engagement and identify patterns of inclusion and silence. Immersive tools—virtual and augmented reality—support shared spatial discussion and situated judgment. AI can help with formative feedback, clustering of themes, and conversational analysis. Used intentionally and transparently, such tools can broaden reach and help align opinions with stated criteria. However, none of these technologies can replace a clear pedagogy or an inclusive studio culture. At the curriculum and faculty development levels, review becomes actionable advice. Programs should articulate learning outcomes for critique alongside design outcomes, map them into sequential courses, and create assignments that make reasoning visible. Formats that distribute authority—rotating juries, conversational critiques, structured rounds, or silent reviews—can moderate power dynamics and reduce unnecessary anxiety. Faculty development should focus on facilitation and questioning strategies, reducing bias, and designing inclusive critique environments that encourage participation, respect diverse forms of knowledge, and support constructive disagreement. Program evaluation should include measures that track the development of critical judgment over time, not just the quality of final artifacts. The review also identifies research priorities that can generate cumulative insights. Longitudinal studies can examine whether explicit training in criticism leads to sustained gains in evaluative judgment, collaboration, and professional growth among graduates. Experimental and comparative designs can assess the effectiveness of different feedback formats and methods in supporting learning and inclusion. Cross-cultural research can examine how local traditions shape critique and how educational concepts are disseminated across languages and institutions. Ongoing bibliometric monitoring can track shifts in discourse—for example, whether terms like “critical pedagogy” are moving from the margins to the conceptual core as programs formalize education and share outcomes. Architectural education continues to organize its studio culture around criticism, yet the field still lacks a shared narrative of what architectural criticism is supposed to accomplish, how it is taught, and how its outcomes are assessed in coherent and transparent ways. In both scholarship and curricula, critique is typically seen as a teaching mechanism for improving work in progress—pinups, roundtables, and juries as moments to guide decisions and refine proposals—rather than as a distinct academic competency that can be named, taught, and assessed. This orientation has reinforced a reliance on inherited traditions and individual teaching styles rather than on research-based models that specify learning outcomes, criteria, and methods. The result is a fragmented pedagogy that obscures the multiple functions of critique in higher education and limits the development of structured, cumulative approaches to teaching it. This study undertakes a scoping review of research conducted in the field of architectural criticism pedagogy to map the field, identify recurring gaps, and develop conceptual and pedagogical frameworks that now guide practice. This review does more than simply cataloguing sources. It reads the literature as evidence for the epistemological place of critique in academia: how the discourse of evaluation produces knowledge, structures participation, and is disseminated as a teachable practice in formal programs. In this sense, the project seeks to contribute to theoretical clarification and practical improvement of teaching strategies. Following the five-step framework of Arce and O’Malley, this review adopts an applied orientation. Targeted searches in Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect using defined keyword strings yielded 494 records. After removing duplicates and two-level screening against the previous inclusion and exclusion criteria, 24 peer-reviewed studies that directly addressed criticism training were retained for analysis. Data were graphed in Excel and examined through descriptive keyword analysis, primary and secondary theme extraction, conceptual content analysis and thesaurus mapping with VOSviewer to visualize the relationships between terms and themes in the dataset. The findings are remarkably consistent. In most sources, critique is framed as a tool: as a means to improve the quality of design proposals, foster critical thinking, and support decision-making in studio courses. The emphasis is short-term and artifact-focused—what kinds of comments open up better alternatives, how to justify revisions, and where to place judgment in iterative design. In contrast, relatively few studies address critique as an independent, structured, and transferable capability. In those less common narratives, critique involves developing criteria, gathering and weighing evidence, articulating reasoned arguments, managing disagreement, and communicating clear judgments—skills that can be learned, practiced, and evaluated across contexts. This emphasis on critique for design has two predictable consequences. First, without an explicit narrative of criticism as systematic inquiry, students are rarely taught how intuition and taste translate into reasoned judgment. Education often prioritizes providing feedback over cultivating evaluative reasoning and ethical awareness. Second, the lack of stated outcomes and benchmarking guidelines undermines curriculum coherence and hinders comparisons across courses and institutions. Practices remain subject to local custom and individual preferences, limiting transferability and slowing cumulative improvement. This synthesis suggests several paths for recalibration. Conceptually, theoretical-practical frameworks should present critique as an inquiry based on criteria, evidence, and argument, not as ad hoc interpretation. Pedagogically, programs can stage a clear learning progression—moving from description to analysis, evaluation, and, ultimately, to metacriticism. Early activities can foster careful observation and impartial description of design movements. Intermediate tasks can require analytical comparisons between precedents, alternatives, and constraints. Advanced tasks can require students to make and defend evaluative judgments, accept opposing arguments, and reflect on the norms and values that guide their reasoning. Assessment should align with this path. Rubrics can make criteria visible, separate the quality of reasons from the tone of the presentation, and differentiate design assessment from critical assessment. Short written “critic notes,” annotated design briefs, and short oral defenses can require students to frame claims, present evidence, and clarify reasons. Careful, measured peer review can amplify voices and foster accountability, while instructor feedback can model clear reasoning, responsible dissent, and humane behavior in the studio. Technology in the reviewed literature appears promising but underdeveloped. Digital platforms can frame asynchronous critique, expand participation, and document how projects and arguments evolve over time; version histories make lines of argument traceable. Learning analytics can help educators regulate engagement and identify patterns of inclusion and silence. Immersive tools—virtual and augmented reality—support shared spatial discussion and situated judgment. AI can help with formative feedback, clustering of themes, and conversational analysis. Used intentionally and transparently, such tools can broaden reach and help align opinions with stated criteria. However, none of these technologies can replace a clear pedagogy or an inclusive studio culture. At the curriculum and faculty development levels, review becomes actionable advice. Programs should articulate learning outcomes for critique alongside design outcomes, map them into sequential courses, and create assignments that make reasoning visible. Formats that distribute authority—rotating juries, conversational critiques, structured rounds, or silent reviews—can moderate power dynamics and reduce unnecessary anxiety. Faculty development should focus on facilitation and questioning strategies, reducing bias, and designing inclusive critique environments that encourage participation, respect diverse forms of knowledge, and support constructive disagreement. Program evaluation should include measures that track the development of critical judgment over time, not just the quality of final artifacts. The review also identifies research priorities that can generate cumulative insights. Longitudinal studies can examine whether explicit training in criticism leads to sustained gains in evaluative judgment, collaboration, and professional growth among graduates. Experimental and comparative designs can assess the effectiveness of different feedback formats and methods in supporting learning and inclusion. Cross-cultural research can examine how local traditions shape critique and how educational concepts are disseminated across languages and institutions. Ongoing bibliometric monitoring can track shifts in discourse—for example, whether terms like “critical pedagogy” are moving from the margins to the conceptual core as programs formalize education and share outcomes. https://aup.journal.art.ac.ir/article_1467_392dd1c580c548157769176055519f59.pdf